-- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
> For instance, one could elaborate by
> > assuming that shortly before 91 the Scythians again attacked
> > Chersonesos and Mithridates sent an army which actually crossed
> > the isthmus
>
> They would have been very slow learners if they had tried that.
> ****GK: I don't like it very much myself to be truthful.*****
>
> Besides Plutarch talks about a 'Sarmatian and Bastarnian' war.
>
> ****GK: Yes that would seem decisive.*****
> (Diophantes didn't).
> Sez you.
>
> ****GK: Because there is no evidence that he did.*****
If you emend that of Strabo out of existence, there isn't. Actually there is, cf.
Valentina Krapivina
Problems of the Chronology of the Late Hellenistic Strata of Olbia
http://www.pontos.dk/publications/books/bss-3-files/BSS3_12_karivina.pdf
'Thus, at the end of the 2nd century BC the situation, which in the previous period was not good either, changed for the worst...
The history of Olbia during that period was connected with Mithridates VI Eupator. Two inscriptions found in Olbia testify to that. Part of the population left the city while the others asked Mithridates VI for help. The above-nmentioned decree (IOSPE I2, 35) honoring the κÏ
βεÏνήÏηÏ, son of Philokrates, from Amisos gives details of the Olbian ambassadors to Mithridates as well as their return together with a new group of the Armenioi sent by the king. New groups were quartered together with the previous garrison in a specially organized camp. Mention of the captain, who during the stormy weather brought some needed goods for the Armenioi who had arrived at Olbia earlier highlights a deep economic decline of the city, which was not able to supply even the garrison.'
B. C. McGing
The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus
pp. 53-58
'Although we know that Diophantus' campaigns came at the beginning of Mithridates' reign, we do not know how many years they spanned and indeed the chronology of the rest of Mithridates' expansion in the Euxine, both of territory and of influence, is mostly unknown. I will not, therefore, attempt to give a chronological account of this expansion, but will examine it geographically, first the land on the Asian side of the Cimmerian Bosporus, then Olbia and the cities down the west coast of the Black Sea39 and finally the east coast south of Gorgippia.
When Neoptolemus was active in the northern Euxine we do not know. We hear of him gaining an unusual double victory over the barbarians on the Bosporan straits - once in a naval battle during summer, and once in a cavalry engagement during winter when the straits were frozen (Strabo 2.1.16 c.73; 7.3.18 c.307). Just before the Second Mithridatic War, in about 84, the tribes of this area revolted (App. Mith. 65), and Mithridates went to war with them, but it was only after the fighting with Murena that he had time to subdue them (App. Mith. 67). Neoptolemus' activity may have been connected with the quelling of this revolt,40 or perhaps with an earlier period, shortly after Diophantus' campaigns: having gained control of the Crimea, Mithridates may well have wanted to extend his power to the Asian side of the Bosporus, where the rulers of the Bosporan kingdom used to hold sway with the title of kings of the Sindians.41 This area did not necessarily come under Pontie control through Diophantus' victories, and if not, it was perhaps acquired by Neoptolemus.
The coinage from these new dominions reflects clearly Mithridates' influence. The grazing stag/Pegasus of his own royal issues (see below p. 97 ff.), and of issues from Amisus, Chabacta and Taulara (see below p. 94 n. 34) can be seen on the coins of Panticapaeum and Chersonesus.42 The ivy surround on the reverse of his royal issues appears at Panticapaeum, Phanagoreia and Gorgippia.43 An eagle standing on thunderbolt and cornucopia between star-crested caps of the Dioscuri were common types among the cities of Pontus during Mithridates' reign (see below p. 94 n. 30; 96 n. 44): they both appear at Panticapaeum and Chersonesus, and the latter at Gorgippia. Similarly the widespread Pontie type of thyrsus and cista (see below p. 96 n. 40) is copied at Panticapaeum and Gorgippia.44 Mithridates' portrait has been recognised on the issues of several western Euxine cities (see below p. 58), and in the Bosporan kingdom too, one Dionysus head is clearly intended as a portrait of the king.45 Furthermore, the presence in northern, and indeed other, Black Sea cities of large quantities of Pontic municipal issues from Eupator's reign, also attests the king's new power in the region.46
Neoptolemus perhaps operated west of the Crimea, as well as east. There was a tower bearing his name at the mouth of the river Tyras (Strabo 7.3.16 c.306), although it may date from earlier times.47 Mithridates did extend his sway in this area at least as far as the city of Olbia. The most important evidence for his relations with Olbia is an inscription of its people honouring a ship captain from Amisus (IOSPE I2 35). The inscription is fragmentary and its interpretation much disputed, but the most satisfactory version is that of Wilhelm: the captain was entrusted with a shipment of royal supplies for the Armenians settled in Olbia by Mithridates; he set out from Amisus and stopped in at Sinope to pick up an embassy of Olbians and perhaps the help (boe:theian? 1.10) they had been sent to seek. He brought his shipment through safely in very difficult conditions.48 It is known that Mithridates did resettle some of his subjects from Pontus in the Bosporan kingdom,49 so it is not unlikely that there should be Armenians in Olbia, but Wilhelm does not attempt to explain why they were there.50 One natural assumption is that the Armenians were not just randomly resettled, but constituted a Pontic garrison. That Olbia would have needed a garrison for protection is demonstrated vividly by the inscription honouring Niceratus, who died in defence of the city against the constant threat of the enemy (IOSPE I2 34; SIG3 730). The exact date is not clear, but the end of the second century or beginning of the first is usually assumed.51 It therefore probably refers to the situation in Olbia just before the city came under the protection of Mithridates, although it may date from the period between the dissolution of Mithridates' protectorate and the sack of the city by the Getae towards the middle of the first century (Dio Chrys. 36.4-5).52 Either way, the Olbians will no doubt have been looking for just the sort of protection that other cities of the Euxine were seeking. It is also difficult to attach with confidence a date to the inscription honouring the Amisene sea captain. If the Armenians are from Armenia Maior then presumably it will date from the time after the marriage of Mithridates' daughter Cleopatra to Tigranes, as it seems only from then that Pontus and Armenia were allies.53 The term "Armenians", however, could just as easily apply to inhabitants of Armenia Minor, over which Mithridates gained contol probably before his alliance with Tigranes. As for a lower date, the end of Mithridates' reign is the only limit. For although in 72/1 M. Terentius Varro Lucullus launched a successful campaign against the cities of the western Euxine supporting Mithridates,54 the cities further north were not affected: Tyras remained in Eupator's sphere during the last decade of his life, and, therefore, it is to be assumed that Olbia did also.55
Coins of Olbia show possible Mithridatic influence. The king's own features are thought to be represented on the obverse of two Olbian issues.56 Another issue depicts on the reverse a dolphin between caps of the Dioscuri with eight-rayed star in field.57 As already noted (above p. 54), a cornucopia between caps of the Dioscuri is a common type for the municipal coins of Pontus issued under Mithridates Eupator's rule, and the dolphin of the Olbian issue has in fact a very similar shape to the cornucopia. It is, however, the circulation "in enormous quantities at Olbia" of Pontic municipal issues which points most clearly to the city's inclusion in Mithridates' realm.58
The next major Greek city south round the coast from Olbia was Tyras. Of its relations with Eupator we have only numismatic evidence, but is has been assumed from this evidence that it too came under his authority.59 The reverse type of an eagle standing on a thunderbolt is the common Pontic type already seen at Panticapaeum and Chersonesus.60 The cornucopia of another coin is also suggestive of Pontic influence.61 North of Tyras, Olbia was under Mithridatic control, and the cities further south on the coast were the king's allies: Tyras too undoubtedly recognised Mithridates' authority.
Epigraphical evidence provides the clearest information on Eupator's influence among the Greek cities of the Rumanian and Bulgarian coast of the Euxine. In an inscription from Apollonia, the people and council honour Epitynchanon, son of Menecrates, a man from Tarsus who commanded the troops sent by Mithridates to Apollonia epi te:n [s]un.[machian(?)62 It appears then that Mithridates had a summachia with Apollonia, and indeed this is probably the nature of his relationship with the other cities of this coast. The troops are for the city's protection, but against which enemy we do not know. Danov thought the help was sent in 72/1 when M. Lucullus was campaigning against these cities, but Magie suggested it should be connected with Mithridates' earlier expansion across the Euxine.63 As the inscription records thanks to Epitynchanon for his presumably successful help, and as Lucullus sacked Apollonia, it seems unlikely that the inscription refers to the time of the siege of the city by Lucullus. Whatever the date of the inscription, it is probable that the alliance at least was concluded before the First Mithridatic War. For on the eve of that war Pelopidas was able to claim that Mithridates had acquired many nations, among them "the Greeks bordering on the Euxine, and the barbarian tribes beyond them" (App. Mith. 14). Among the named barbarian allies are Bastarnae and Thracians,64 and to have such allies as these, Mithridates must have been active on the west coast of the Black Sea. When the Social War broke out in Italy, we in fact hear of Mithridates being engaged in war with Bastarnae and Sarmatians (Plut. Mor. 324 C, De fort. Rom. 11). It would be natural then that he had struck up a relationship with the Greek cities of this area in the course of his activities there. Apollonia was not his only ally. As Eutropius (6.10) reported, M. Lucullus also captured Callatis,65 Parthenopolis, Tomis, Istrus, Burziaon. Mesembria too succumbed (IG Bulg. 12 314a) and presumably other places such as Odessus and Dionysopolis. Coins confirm the alignment of some of these cities with Mithridates. A Lysimachean type stater from Istrus bears on the obverse a portrait with features clearly modelled on Mithridates, or one of his immediate family.66 Tomis has the same.67 The Mithridatic portrait on coins from Callatis is supplemented in some cases by a monogram made up of the letters MITH, interpreted by Pick as Mithradates,68 Mithridates' portrait disguised as Heracles has long been recognised on coins of Odessus, and recently of Mesembria.69 Byzantium and Chalcedon may also have come under the protectorate of Mithridates, if it is correct to identify his portrait on coins of those cities.70'
> > > Tyras does, whence my suggested emendation.
> >
> > For 'Adrias' to make sense, Mithridates must have planned an
> > invasion of Rome already at that time. Why couldn't he have?
> > Hannibal knew Carthage would come to blows with Rome sooner or
> > later. Why couldn't Mithridates have sensed the same?
> >
> > GK: I would have to agree if one meant plans and dreams rather
> > than actual deeds.
>
> That's not very Alexander-like.
> ****GK: Why not? Alexander dreamed of taking on the Scythians, but
> only after he had conquered the rest of the known world.*****
> > Mithridates waxs obviously an educated monarch
> > who would have read all about Alexander and his exploits. He could
> > certainly dream about crushing Rome very early. And he must have
> > known about the battle of Noreia even before his initial
> > intervention (via Diophantes) on behalf of the Chersonesites
> > against the Scythians (a challenge that, for someone who secretly
> > may have planned to emulate Alexander).
>
> He would have rooted for the Cimbri. Vercellae 101 BCE would have
> made him think twice about attacking Italy.
> *****GK: I don't see where this would have scuttled his dream.*****
We know it didn't. But it would have made him think twice about attacking Italy
> > > I would surmise that some copyist erroneously substituted
> > "Adrias".
> >
> > Yes, you have to do that. I don't.
> >
> > > There is a similarity in Strabo's account of the fall of Bactria
> > > (acc. to some scholars and I agree with them) where he repeats
> > > "Asii" as "Pasiani". The correct reading is in Justin.
> >
> > The reading as 'Asii' as 'Pasiani', you mean?
> >
> > GK: Yes. The theory that "Pasiani" is an alternate reading on the
> > margin which somehow found its way into the main text. According
> > to my current view, "Adrias" might have started that way, and then
> > simply have been substituted for "Tyras". Maybe the copyist was
> > familiar with Mithradates' final plans of 63 BCE.
>
> Why would 'Adrias' at all have been suggested as a second reading
> anyway in the first place?
> ****GK: A slip by some copyist thinking of what he knew of 63 BCE.
> Or possibly just a misread of a difficult spelling. Who knows?*****
Exactly. Who knows how that emendation can be justified.
> > > which took place when Khersonesos appealed to Mithridates for
> > > help against the (same?) barbarians, ie in 110-108 BCE.
> > >
> > > GK: There is a brief lacuna in the Diophantes inscription after
> > > he recaptures Neapolis from the Scythians in 108. But no
> > > intimation of any further campaigns beyond the isthmus, just an
> > > expedition to solidify the position of Mithradates in Bosporus.
> > > And then the glorious inscription.
> >
> > Yes, I saw it. Now imagine a similar statue with inscription for
> > Generals Patton or Eisenhower as liberator somewhere in France.
> > Would it necessarily mention his campaign in North Africa?
> > GK: Are you suggesting that the Pontics campaigned across the
> > isthmus before the events recounted in the Diophantes inscription?
> > (:=)))
>
> Yes. Now you may ask why on earth would M. have engaged in military
> activity across the Black Sea from his own kingdom, but one would
> have to answer that question also if one, with tradition, assumes
> that that activity started with appeals from Khersonesos or the
> Bosporan Kingdom.
>
> Here's a possible motive:
> Adrienne Mayor
> The Poison King :
> the life and legend of Mithradates,
> Rome's deadliest enemy
> p. 69
> 'After his father was buried in the royal mausoleum at Amasia (the old Pontic capital), young Mithradates was crowned king of Pontus, in 120 or 119 BC. His fathers will apparently left the kingdom to the joint rule of Queen Laodice, Mithradates, and his brother Mithradates the Good. Since both princes were underage, Laodice retained all power as regent, and she favored her younger, more malleable son. Laodice's love of luxury made her a compliant client of Rome. Over the next few years, she accepted their bribes, and her extravagance pushed Pontus into debt.'
> Â
> M. might have been procuring slaves on the Scythians' territory between the isthmus and the Adriatic to get his kingdom out of debt. That would have made him an excellent candidate for an ally to the Greek slave market cities in the Crimea who were being hassled by their present procurers.
> *****GK: I don't attach as much importance to this slave analysis as
> you do.
http://orlyowl.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/orly.jpg
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65000
> For instance I think Lockyear (sp?) doesn't agree with Crawford on
> the Roman coins in Dacia (i.e. the reason for their presence) and
> he's the better numismatist.****
My uncle used to tell proselytizing Jehova's witnesses that he wasn't interested, since he was a numismatist. That usually stumped them. Numismatic prowess is equally relevant here. Lockyear places the peak of import of Republican denarii into Dacia to 75-65 BCE, as against after Pompey's eradication of the pirates in 63 BCE as Crawford suggested, but Lockyear's date coincides with my interpretation that the peak in the paid import of slaves to Rome from Dacia happened in the years preceding and during Spartacus' revolt 73 - 71 BCE when slaves defected to Spartacus on arrival, slave procurement from the big slave markets in the Black Sea region was blocked to the Romans, and expensive necessary slave procurement from Dacia by the big new latifundias got them into heavy debt. Crawford
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66827
estimates:
'It is unfortunately not possible to calculate other than very roughly what proportion of the Republican denarii which travelled to Romania is represented by the 25,000 now known. Some hazardous calculations may, however, perhaps be suggestive. If one assumes that one coin in a thousand from an original population may survive, one would have a total of 25,000,000 Republican denarii once circulating in Dacia. There is of course no way of knowing the number of denarii exported to Dacia and instantly melted down because of the special circumstances obtaining there (see above). As a pure hypothesis, one might suggest a total of 50,000,000 denarii once exported to Dacia. One might then hypothesize that a very low sum was paid for a slave at the point of original purchase, comparing the amphora of wine paid for a slave in Gaul, say 50 denarii. Republican denarii exported to Dacia between the mid-60s and 30 B.C. might then account for something approaching 30,000 slaves per year. This is a substantial part of the annual requirement of Italy, if one assumes a total slave population of 2,000,000 and an annual requirement of 50,000 by purchase and 50,000 by breeding.'
50,000,000 sestertii at a bread (McDonald's) equivalent of $20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius#Comparisons_and_silver_content
= $1,000,000,000 spent on slave procurement in a few years time. That's a lot of money in Roman times. Small wonder the latifundias were in debt up to the Catilinarian conspiracies in 65 and 63 BCE.
> > Khersonesos ended up losing its freedom to Mithridates. Why
> > mention the fact that their very liberator was hemming them in
> > with his other conquests?
> >
> > > This was preparatory to a campaign against the Romans.
> > >
> > > GK: Which fits in quite well with the events of 88 as described
> > > in Appian.ÃÂ And with the Plutarch quote about 91-88.
> >
> > Yes it would have. Unfortunately Strabo places it in 110 - 108
> > BCE.
> >Â
> > GK: Well what he says is that Chersonesos was only fully
> > incorporated at a time when Mithradates campaigned actively across
> > the isthmus, preparatory to his Roman war.
>
> No, he doesn't:
> 'This city was at first self-governing, but when it was sacked by
> the barbarians it was forced to choose Mithridates Eupator as
> protector.'
>
> *****GK: My point is that Strabo had a tendency to telescope events.
> He has Mithradates warring against Skiluros, but Skiluros was dead
> long before Diophantes' intervention. And we know that Chersonesos
> was not fully incorporated (that meant receiving a Pontic governor)
> in 110-108 BCE.****
> > Now clearly he never reached the Adriatic, neither then nor at any
> > time (not even in 88ff.).
>
> Ah, I see what you got wrong there. Strabo says:
>
> 'He was then leading an army against the barbarians who lived beyond
> the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes and the Adrias'
>
> You are reading it as:
> 'He was then leading an army against the barbarians (who lived
> beyond the isthmus) as far as the Borysthenes and the Adrias'
> *****GK: Yes that's my read, with the emendation. That would cover
> Bastarnia and Iazygia. The Scythians were now allies or
> neutralized.****
>
> and ignoring this reading:
> 'He was then leading an army against the barbarians (who lived
> beyond the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes and the Adrias)'
>
> which I think is the right one. Thus: those barbarians that
> Mithridates fought were living beyond the isthmus as far as the
> Borysthenes and the Adrias; Mithridates fought them, but Strabo
> doesn't say that doing so M. reached the Adriatic.
>
> *****GK: Which barbarians would that be? The Scythians proper were
> cut off from the Tyras in that time. I don't know any barbarians
> "living beyond the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes and the
> Adrias". Unless you mean a string of distinct "barbarian" ethna.
Yes, I do. Defined as those people who were harassing his client Greek cities.
> With the Iazyges and Bastarnians leading the parade. This fits 91
>-88. Note also that in 110 Diophantos terminated his campaign after
> defeating the Scythians in the Crimea, and renew****
??
> > But Strabo is not talking about dreams but about actual deeds.
>
> True.
>
> > The only thing that seems to fit (again not in 110-108, but in
> > 91-89) is a campaign against Bastarnians and Sarmatians (Iazyges),
> > if one emends "Adrias" to "Tyras".
> I disagree. Alexander died in his early thirties, anybody who wanted
> to emulate him would have to start early, as Caesar noted.
>Â
> ****GK: Well, maybe he tought in terms of eventual over all
> accomplishments rather than Guinness age records.****
Plutarch, Caesar, 12
http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/plutarch/caesar.htm#12
'It is said that another time, when free from business in Spain, after reading some part of the history of Alexander, he sat a great while very thoughtful, and at last burst out into tears. His friends were surprised, and asked him the reason of it. "Do you think," said he, "I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable?"'
Torsten